Home  > Recent Judgements  > CONSENSUAL PREMARITAL RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE TREATED AS POOR CHARACTER: SUPREME COURT RESTORES POLICE CONSTABLE CANDIDATE’S APPOINTMENT

Jun-08- 2026

CONSENSUAL PREMARITAL RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE TREATED AS POOR CHARACTER: SUPREME COURT RESTORES POLICE CONSTABLE CANDIDATE’S APPOINTMENT

“A Landmark Judgment on Personal Relationships, Moral Character, and Public Employment”

In a significant judgment reflecting evolving social realities, the Supreme Court of India has held that a consensual premarital physical relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of poor moral character or moral turpitude. The Court emphasized that the failure of a romantic relationship to culminate in marriage does not automatically establish cheating, dishonesty, or unfitness for public service.

The ruling came in Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board & Others, where a police constable candidate’s appointment had been cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case arising from a failed romantic relationship. The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan, marks an important development in the jurisprudence relating to public employment, moral turpitude, and individual autonomy.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Gajula Thirupathi, was provisionally selected for appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) in Telangana.

During the process of verification of antecedents, authorities discovered that he had previously been implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint had been lodged by a woman from his village who alleged that he had maintained a romantic and physical relationship with her for several years on the promise of marriage but eventually married another woman.

The criminal proceedings, however, did not proceed to trial. During the pendency of the case, both parties arrived at a settlement, and the matter was compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.

Importantly, the appellant did not suppress this information. He fully disclosed the criminal case in the attestation and verification forms submitted during recruitment. Despite this transparency, the Recruitment Board concluded that the allegations involved moral turpitude and rendered him unsuitable for service in a disciplined force such as the police department.

The Recruitment Board's Reasoning

The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board took the view that:

  1. The allegations constituted an offence involving moral turpitude.
  2. Compounding the case before the Lok Adalat amounted to an implied admission of guilt.
  3. Police personnel are expected to possess impeccable character and integrity.
  4. Even though the criminal proceedings had ended, the underlying conduct made the candidate unsuitable for appointment.

Consequently, the candidate’s provisional selection was cancelled.

Proceedings Before the High Court

The candidate challenged the cancellation before the Telangana High Court

Single Judge's Decision

The Single Judge ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed reconsideration of his case. The Court noted several important circumstances:

  • The complainant and the petitioner were adults.
  • Both belonged to the same village and had known each other for years.
  • The possibility of a consensual relationship could not be ruled out.
  • The petitioner had no other criminal antecedents.
  • The matter had already been settled and compounded before the Lok Adalat.

The Single Judge therefore concluded that the employer ought to have considered these factors before branding the candidate as unsuitable.

Division Bench's Decision

However, the Division Bench of the High Court later reversed the Single Judge’s order and upheld the Recruitment Board’s decision.

The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully examined the principles governing public employment and criminal antecedents.

The Court reiterated that an employer is entitled to assess the suitability of a candidate even if criminal proceedings have ended in acquittal, discharge, or compromise. However, such assessment cannot be arbitrary or based on assumptions.

The Court emphasized that before treating a candidate as unsuitable on the ground of moral turpitude, authorities must have material showing:

  • that the offence was actually committed; and
  • that the candidate was involved in the commission of such offence.

Mere registration of a criminal case or its settlement through compromise does not automatically establish guilt.

"Compromise Does Not Mean Admission of Guilt"

One of the most significant findings of the Court was its rejection of the Recruitment Board’s assumption that settlement before a Lok Adalat amounted to an admission of guilt.

The Court observed that there was absolutely no material to support such an inference.

According to the Bench, treating a compromise as proof of guilt without any supporting evidence was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court described the reasoning of the authorities as “completely perverse.”

This observation is particularly important because compromise settlements are common in many criminal disputes and cannot automatically be used against individuals in employment matters.

Recognition of Changing Social Realities

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the judgment is the Court’s acknowledgment of contemporary social realities.

The Bench observed that premarital relationships between consenting adults have become increasingly common in modern society and that public authorities must remain sensitive to these changing realities. The Court categorically stated:

“Physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship.”

The Court further emphasized that Indian law does not prohibit consensual relationships between unmarried adults. Therefore, such relationships cannot be treated as evidence of moral depravity or bad character merely because they do not culminate in marriage.

Not Every Failed Relationship Amounts to Cheating

The Supreme Court also made an important distinction between a failed relationship and criminal deception.

The Court observed that:

Not every relationship culminates in marriage, and the mere fact that a relationship ends without marriage cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that one party cheated the other.

In the present case, the complainant had chosen not to pursue the allegations and had voluntarily agreed to settle the matter. Consequently, there was insufficient material to conclude that the appellant had deceived her from the very beginning of the relationship.

The Court recognized that romantic relationships often end for a variety of reasons and that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a relationship fails.

Distinguishing Earlier Cases on Police Recruitment

The State relied upon earlier Supreme Court decisions where candidates were denied entry into police or armed forces despite acquittals.

However, the Court distinguished those precedents.

The earlier cases generally involved:

  • violent conduct,
  • offences affecting public order,
  • acts displaying criminal tendencies, or
  • conduct incompatible with disciplined service.

In contrast, the present case concerned a private consensual relationship between two adults. Once the complainant withdrew her allegations and settled the dispute, the very basis for concluding that a criminal offence had occurred became doubtful.

Therefore, the Court held that those precedents were not applicable.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court concluded that:

  • The Screening Committee acted arbitrarily.
  • There was no material to establish moral turpitude.
  • The compromise before the Lok Adalat could not be treated as admission of guilt.
  • The candidate had honestly disclosed all relevant facts.
  • A consensual premarital relationship could not be treated as proof of bad character.

Accordingly, the Court:

  • Allowed the appeal;
  • Set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court;
  • Restored the Single Judge’s order; and
  • Directed reconsideration of the appellant’s appointment as a police constable.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This decision is likely to have far-reaching implications in public employment law and recruitment processes across India.

Key Takeaways

  1. Personal Relationships Are Not Automatic Indicators of Moral Character

The judgment rejects outdated assumptions that consensual premarital relationships reflect poor morality or unfitness for public service.

  1. Compromise Is Not Proof of Guilt

Authorities cannot presume that settlement of a criminal case amounts to an admission of wrongdoing.

  1. Public Employers Must Act Fairly

Recruitment agencies must base decisions on objective evidence rather than stereotypes or moral assumptions.

  1. Recognition of Individual Autonomy

The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s broader constitutional jurisprudence recognizing privacy, dignity, autonomy, and freedom of choice in personal relationships.

  1. Narrow Interpretation of Moral Turpitude

The ruling reinforces that the concept of moral turpitude cannot be applied loosely or mechanically, particularly when dealing with private consensual conduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board represents an important step toward aligning public employment standards with constitutional values and contemporary social realities. By holding that consensual premarital relationships cannot be equated with poor moral character, the Court has reinforced the principles of fairness, dignity, and individual autonomy.

The judgment sends a clear message that recruitment decisions in public service must be based on objective evidence and legal standards not on moral presumptions arising from private relationships. In doing so, the Court has strengthened protections against arbitrary exclusion from public employment while recognizing the evolving nature of personal relationships in modern India.